ArticleAdvances in rheumatology (London, England)2024
Comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are ACPA and shared epitope positive.
Article in Advances in rheumatology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of rheumatoid factor, anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and shared epitope with clinical response to initial treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: data from a randomised controlled trial.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2024Trial
- Influence of the shared epitope on the effectiveness of biologic antirheumatic agents in European patients with rheumatoid arthritis.RMD open · 2026Article
- Review
- Novel Biomarker for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Serum Peptidylarginine Deiminase 4-Potentiating Activity in an Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody-Positive At-Risk Population.Scandinavian journal of immunology · 2026Article
- First-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitor versus abatacept treatment choice in real-world patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody- and rheumatoid factor-positive rheumatoid arthritis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic DMARDs in Young-Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept Versus Adalimumab in Shared Epitope Positive and Negative Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Changes in Long-Term Glucocorticoid Use Among Older Adults After New Diagnosis of Late-Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis.ACR open rheumatology · 2025Article
- Identification of a Rule to Predict Response to Sarilumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Machine Learning and Clinical Trial Data.Rheumatology and therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) is a risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in RA patients. Our objective was to examine the real-world effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with RA who were SE and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP3) positive.
methodsAbatacept or TNFi initiators who were SE + and anti-CCP3+ (> 20 U/mL) at or prior to treatment and had moderate or high CDAI score (> 10) at initiation were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI score over six months. Analyses were conducted in propensity score (PS)-trimmed and -matched populations overall and a biologic-experienced subgroup. Mixed-effects models were used.
resultsIn the overall PS-trimmed (abatacept, n = 170; TNFi, n = 157) and PS-matched cohorts (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 111), there were numerically greater improvements in mean change in CDAI between abatacept and TNFi but were not statistically significant. Similar trends were seen for biologic-experienced patients, except that statistical significance was reached for mean change in CDAI in the PS-trimmed cohort (abatacept, 12.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 10.13 to 14.31]; TNFi, 9.28 [95%CI 7.08 to 11.48]; p = 0.045).
conclusionIn this real world cohort, there were numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes with abatacept over TNFi in patients with RA who were SE + and ACPA+, similar to results from a clinical trial population The only statistically significant finding after adjusting for covariates was greater improvement in CDAI with abatacept versus TNFi in the bio-experienced PS-trimmed cohort..
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.